Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Compares Windows And Linux

Posted by timothy on from the horses-for-courses dept.

Halcyon-X writes "Microsoft is hosting a discussion on Windows and Linux between its two top Linux consultants. Martin Taylor and Bill Hilf talk about the various OSS licenses, focus on the open source development model, competing implementations of administration tools, TCO, and risk assessment. Also available in offline formats, doc (which looks fine in OpenOffice.org) and wma as well."

98 of 468 comments (clear)

  1. Same old, same old... by FyRE666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...For example, one thing that normally comes up is that Microsoft is anti-open source, and they've used some of our activities as Microsoft versus open source. This is definitely not the case. Yes..."
    And that's the point at which Martin Taylor (the MS talking head) confirmed that this discussion was yet another dull FUD exercise and I stopped reading. Seriously, this is getting very old now. They need some fresh new script-writers over at MS, otherwise they're in danger of losing even their most avid fans!

    --
    Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
    1. Re:Same old, same old... by savagedome · · Score: 3, Funny

      Windows is open source. Its unbelievable but true

      --


      Free XBox, PS2
    2. Re:Same old, same old... by Twanfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows is not Open Source as most people use the term. Windows even goes so far as to call it's program Shared Source, which means you can look, but you cannot touch. I imagine there are even provisions in there that forbid you from working on competing open source projects such as Linux.

      Of course, Windows is only Open Source once you pony up some dough, or have significant buying power in order to make Microsoft feel it's worth it. Joe Schmoe developer isn't going to be seeing Windows' source any time soon. If you doubt that, go download the source for us so we can see how easy it is.

    3. Re:Same old, same old... by Dogers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know loads of people are going to whinge at this, so like Martin says at the end - LET THEM KNOW!

      He gives his email address, martinta@microsoft.com - email him and let him know why you use linux. Get chipping!

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    4. Re:Same old, same old... by deaddrunk · · Score: 2, Funny

      We know the only way we win with customers is by having a much better solution to offer our customers.

      Hahahahahahahahaha

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    5. Re:Same old, same old... by brad-x · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "yet another dull FUD exercise"

      I'm finding it amusing how easily everyone is dismissing this rather than paying attention to it and gleaning important points.

      Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example).

      These kinds of points are strong, not because they're obvious, but because they indicate that in a lot of respects, adopting an open source operating system does not mean embracing free and open software. There is always cost and propriety.

      Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid.

      Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems.

      The foregoing is not FUD. It's "the right tool for the right job". Microsoft doesn't strongly compete in top-level enterprise services like border security, and it doesn't do a great deal of business replacing UNIX systems or placing itself in environments where UNIX would ordinarily be. Why? Because it doesn't provide as much value. But at the workgroup level, they're a competitor and everyone just has to deal with that.

      --
      // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
    6. Re:Same old, same old... by SQLz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think the community wants MS to open up the Windows source. Even MS said that doing so would be 'a threat to national security'. What we do want is for MS products to better interopate with open source.

    7. Re:Same old, same old... by nolife · · Score: 3, Informative

      Releasing some of your own tools under some type of open source license is NOT equal to "working with the open source community". Working with the open source community IMHO, would be releasing tools or at least specifications that allow any non MS products to work better or integrate into existing MS products. This may happen on a small scale now but it is VERY limited.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    8. Re:Same old, same old... by nolife · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are making very specific points about specific products and services being better then others and the most logical choice.

      Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite.
      Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server.

      Then you comment on having the right tool for the job. I truely do not think you believe that though.
      How can you state the specific products above are the right tools for the job but never actually state or define what job they are being used for? In your nameless scenario where you suggest Office and 2003 server is the best and most logical solution, could you explain why Samba and Open Office would not be an option?
      I have installed and serviced quite a few small businesses and I have used a variety of solutions including MS servers, Samba, Novell, MS Office, Word Perfect, and Open Office, various data backup methods, and various remote administration tools. What was used was not determined until we discussed what they need, want, and what they currently have. I do not use a hunch that assumes one choice is always better then the others. I'll admit though that given the choice (the company does not know what they need or does not care), I will suggest the Samba/OO route. The only time that becomes an issue is if they later decide they want MS Word installed. Not for functionality, not for stability, not for ease of use, but only when compatibility with others becomes a limiting factor.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    9. Re:Same old, same old... by Decaff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems.

      Firstly, samba IS the same as Server 2003 as a workgroup server. That is it's point. Secondly, how can Server 2003 be a turn-key server? All servers, no matter how small, need configuring, integrating with existing systems (such as existing networking), account management and backup configuration. By the time you have done that, there is going to be little to choose between Server 2003 and Samba.

      As for collaboration, Office 2003 may well be good for this, but in my experience such features are rarely used. I have performed many migrations from MS Office to Open Office + Evolution, and after getting used to the change in UI, most users have not noticed any difference in functionality. Microsoft frequently adds 'perceived' value, but not actual value in terms of everyday use. If you really do need some collaboration Evolution works well with MS Exchange.

    10. Re:Same old, same old... by FatherOfONe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You Quote the article
      "Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example)."

      I would somewhat agree but the main point is that companies are now putting large resources behind open source/Linux. Compare this to three years ago. So yes IBM will probably not open source Websphere and Oracle will not opensource their DB, but the fact remains that both companies are now working to improve the kernel and other features of the OS. Also companies like Oracle will now FULLY support a system like RedHat ES running their DB. They will provide you the RPM's and everything. So if you are like say 99% of the mid size companies that run a pure DB server (nothing else special loaded on the server) this is a good thing.

      You quote:
      "Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid."

      I call you out on this. We need to define value for the money. This is the ambiguous TCO that is talked about. I will gladly put Linux and open source products against most of Microsofts. But before we debate on that issue we need to define TCO. Also, I would like to add that I have been part of one of the worlds largest I.T./Microsoft only shops. I have also been in a pure Linux environment as well. I will say that both technologies have "issues", but if you want to talk about "value" and TCO I would love to debate you on it.

      You quote:
      "Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems."

      I would agree that some of Microsofts products do provide some value. Would you agree that they also provide vendor lock in? That is something that needs to be looked at in TCO. You bash Samba and OpenOffice but I wonder how much you have used them. Microsoft talks a lot about listening to their customers and building software that adds value to them, but I argue that they provide software that tries to lock your company in to their technology, then they try to slowly up the amount you have to pay to Microsoft over time. They are little different than a drug dealer. Their core responsibility is to make as much money as possible all why claiming to add value.

      The last core issue that Microsoft and most companies fail to see is that opensource is more about freedom and communication that anything else. Because of opensource software you currently have a 64bit operating system for AMD64, and companies like TIVO are free to "add value" to their customers without having to talk to potential competitors. Now cell phones are starting to standardize on opensource software. Why? Because there is significant value in it. What about the next great gadget out there? What OS do you think they will choose to run on it? Windows? What if Microsoft may become a competitor of theirs?

      Another large issue that Microosft seems to fail to mention in the entire article is the enormous growth of Linux and opensource in such a small amount of time. To be honest though, by them "talking" about it, they must realize that they do not add as much value as people think and that far more developers are working on it than they mentioned...

      We do agree that Microsoft does "add value", just that value comes at a c

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    11. Re:Same old, same old... by someonewhois · · Score: 2

      ...and after getting used to the change in UI... It's funny you should bring that up. If YOU have to get used to the UI, do you really think end users will? End users don't even fully understand how MS Office works, but they know where things are, and what things look like. UI is everything, and very few open source projects realize this.

      Not trying to just flamebait here, but have you ever used Windows Server 2003 remotely? If you can tell me that Shell is easier than RDP, then I'll be amazed. (For the record, my server's Linux, not Windows... but I've managed Windows servers, and they're definitely easier to handle.)

    12. Re:Same old, same old... by brad-x · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I call you out on this. We need to define value for the money. This is the ambiguous TCO that is talked about. I will gladly put Linux and open source products against most of Microsofts. But before we debate on that issue we need to define TCO. Also, I would like to add that I have been part of one of the worlds largest I.T./Microsoft only shops. I have also been in a pure Linux environment as well. I will say that both technologies have "issues", but if you want to talk about "value" and TCO I would love to debate you on it.

      Hmm. Largely I'm concerned about needed functionality weighed against licensing costs (ongoing) as well as cost of maintenance; I recently dealt with a company which wanted to deploy groupware for all of its employees so that they could (in teams) perform scheduling and project management. Several options existed, the most likely candidate being Novell Groupwise in combination with Evolution on the clientside (they were OS agnostic, which was quite nice to deal with). The requirement nothing but Exchange satisfied though was that everyone in the organization has a Palm Pilot and needed to sync all that information with them regularly both locally and remotely.

      Another unexpected attribute is that the Exchange server has functionalities which have improved their workflow in unexpected ways, which is another credit to the value it provides, although this is subjective and the same effect may well have been experienced with Groupwise server.

      The total cost of this remains to be seen, as it has just been deployed in the last month - setting the system up securely took a great deal of time and effort, which is a strike against it, and over the course of time having to upgrade the Windows servers to maintain support will enter into the picture too.

      In this particular case though, the company needed something only the Exchange solution could provide (there was also Lotus Notes, but we didn't spend a great deal of time looking into that option), which (from where I'm sitting anyway) indicates that the value provided by it was better even though the costs may be higher than the alternatives.

      I would agree that some of Microsofts products do provide some value. Would you agree that they also provide vendor lock in?

      Absolutely. In the short term this can be a good thing, because a person relying on Microsoft solutions will continue to use a familiar platform. In the mid term costs begin to go up and the weight of the solution begins to be felt. But in the long term, once sufficient demand has been built up, the market always responds with viable alternatives that will either drive costs back down or provide a cheaper alternative (this is indeed the impact Linux is having on Microsoft right now, due to increasing customer dissatisfaction).

      So basically, no vendor lockin is perfect, there's always a way to loosen it up or break out of it before it becomes intolerable.

      Question for you: If given the chance, do you think Novell or IBM, or one of these companies providing proprietary solutions on top of an open source stack, won't take the opportunity to attempt to lock their customers in?

      I feel somewhat qualified to say that Microsoft doesn't care about their customers unless it effects their bottem line.

      I agree. Unfortunately the only way Microsoft has seen the need to improve its products and lower its prices is due to rapidly increasing competition, which is always the greatest equalizer but it doesn't say much about the company's commitment to its customers otherwise.

      --
      // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
    13. Re:Same old, same old... by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment)

      Indeed so. I've recently completed an intensive 7 month research project in which I compared the performance of Windows 2000 and 2003 with Linux/Samba running on the same hardware. It was very interesting to see how empirical reality stacked up against commonly accepted wisdom on the comparisons between Linux and other solutions.

      Commonly accepted wisdom reads very much like your post did - nebulous, dismissive, voice-of-reason style speak that derives an almost guaranteed collective harrumph from Slashdot moderators and the IT community at large. Office 2003 is a collaboration suite? WTF? It's not even intended to be used as a "collaboration suite". It's a desktop application suite, and a rather bad one at that (with the possible exception of Excel). Microsoft's collaboration suite is Exchange. The competing products are Notes and Groupwise. To make a claim regarding 2003 as a collaboration piece, much less a good one, is to ignore the well-known problems of version incompatibility between Office releases, document rot, and the ability to recover hidden information within documents, all of which directly controvene collaboration.

      I performed thousands of tests and generated more raw test data than would fit on a DVD because my company needed to know the facts about server performance. I didn't trust what was being said on blogs and fora about the various products. I installed and tested numerous operating system/application configurations. My testing revealed that not only is Samba better, more stable, and faster than Windows file services on the exact same hardware, but Windows can't even remotely compete. Performance analysis baselines and processor utilization levels during testing weren't even comparable. There was no "voice of reason" about it - no comfortable anti-groupthink rhetorical position into which one could arrogantly recline and dispense half-truths and irrelevant tripe. There was only fact - hard cold reality. Sort of like how every major Internet virus disaster, spyware infestation, and countless other sorts of electronic calamity occurs as a direct result of using Microsoft software. You can't spin that. You can't moderate that. It simply, relentlessly, is.

      Further standing in plain sight is the source code for Samba. Because we had access to the innards of the file server system, we could further optimize the already exemplary out of the box performance of the system and fine-tune it for our specific needs. We now have a file server system that could never be matched in performance or cost by a monolithic, proprietary solution that attempts to be all things to all people from its ignominious perch within a cardboard box.

      So yeah, objectivity certainly seems to me to be in short supply. Luckily for me and my company, however, choice is not.

    14. Re:Same old, same old... by nathanh · · Score: 4, Funny
      Windows even goes so far as to call it's program Shared Source, which means you can look, but you cannot touch.

      Look, but don't touch.

      Touch, but don't taste.

      Taste, but don't swallow.

      Hrm, if Bill Gates is the devil, as I have now undoubtedly proven, does that mean Ballmer is the person who gets spread-eagled naked in front of me to tempt me into a life of sin.

      Oh my god, I've just gone blind, and I think I threw up a little, help, help...

    15. Re:Same old, same old... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      This is nothing to do with the quality of either product, and is basically off topic, but what I've noticed about things like Active Directory is that they're easy enough to "install" that a lot of clueless system administrators install it without knowing how to use it.

      There's a difference between actually setting something up and dumping the image on the hard drive. One of the things I hate about Windows admins is that a lot of them don't learn anything about the fundamentals of what they're using; they just learn which buttons to click that will end up yielding the "Congratulations! You've just installed [mission crittical app]" page in the install wizard.

      There's something to be said for systems that are designed to be minimal, small, and efficient, are easily scripted, and actually require you to know what you're doing.

      This definately doesn't apply to end user desktops--since, for example, making device installation removal automatic helps everybody. The power users just need to be able to tweak it, but everyone more or less wants the same functionality. Windows servers, however, tend to breed really clueless admins.

      That being said, I've met some really good ones in my day as well. And, sadly enough, the number of Linux admins who are getting to be able to get a basic vanilla install of a lot of complicated services up and running without learning how both the software and Linux work is increasing.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    16. Re:Same old, same old... by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

      there was also Lotus Notes, but we didn't spend a great deal of time looking into that option

      Ummm, why not? Certainly the client software has some warts, but it's been proven in workflow applications for years, has a good security track record, and can sync to palm pilots?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Same old, same old... by Decaff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that's the entire point of choosing Windows as a server, right? I'm pretty sure it was one of the the original selling points, when Windows NT mainly competed against NetWare: "Why not use the file server that has the same UI as your Windows client boxes? Desktop service technicians can be upgraded into server admins with a very smooth learning curve."

      When I was involved in purchasing servers, I went for NT because at the time it seemed to fit well into small groups of PCs, as you could use an NT server to provide file/print sharing and as a general purpose workstation at the same time. The idea of a dedicated server PC was an unnecessary expense in many situations. A decade later, hardware is a lot smaller and less expensive, and dedicated servers (even in small installations) make more financial sense. In this situation, having a full Windows system with GUI seems overkill.

    18. Re:Same old, same old... by jonwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are good reasons (Financial and others) for Microsoft NOT to Open Source products like Microsoft Office, Microsoft Windows etc.

      However, there is no big overriding reason why they couldnt open source specific components.
      For example, the Internet Explorer HTML rendering engine.
      Or the code for the Microsoft Visual Studio C/C++ Runtime Library
      Or the code to Solitare.
      Or whatever.

      In fact, I have said it before and I will say it again, open sourcing the IE rendering engine & core makes sense. By open-sourcing it, MS doesnt need to spend as much time fixing all the ever-present security holes that are turning up in said product. Also, it would enable the community to add the features Internet Explorer is missing (such as proper alpha transparency and blending for PNG files and better complience with the HTML standards) that Microsoft doesnt care about.
      And it would allow features to be added to make IE more secure out of the box (although the work MS did in XPSP2 makes some of these points less valid now)

      If microsoft implemented a policy of taking back the best of what the community created and using it in the "official" versions of whatever component it is, everybody wins.
      Microsoft gets a better program without spending a huge amount of effort.
      The IE-using community gets a better program with the stuff implemented that microsoft wont implement because it doesnt make business sense to do so.
      And the internet as a whole would be better off because there would be potentially less crap (viruses etc) floating around and the crap that is there wouldnt spread as easily)

    19. Re:Same old, same old... by fymidos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >various GPL licensed tools from Microsoft servers

      knowing their position on gpl, i imagine that the only reason they licensed anything under it, is that it was already a gpl product they tinkled with. So they were forced to do it.

      and "MS has proven very willing to deal with opensource, and indeed the GPL," ???
      As they were very willing to deal with internet and indeed netscape, with operating systems and indeed IBM, with wordprocessors and indeed wordperfect etc...

      Funny, in all those cases, i don't recall them having an open discussion on "why isn't our message coming through". Apparently something is going wrong now.

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    20. Re:Same old, same old... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example)."

      Yeah, they had that before supporting open source, they called it AIX.

      Of course IBM and other COPORATIONS are not aiding open source for their health. Corporations exist and drive toward a single aim, making money. IBM has spent sums of billions promoting open source software and releasing open source software because they feel there is more money to be made with an open platform than a proprietary one, even their own.

      IBM has financed and developed dozens of open source projects to add value to linux, both IBM and the open source community have reaped the benefits. THAT is why IBM is considered to be supporting open source, because they are churning out code and are opening interfaces, not because someone is stupid enough to believe ANY corporation is altruistic.

      "(objectivity being in short supply in this environment)"

      Objectivity defined as sharing YOUR viewpoint, which is in the minority among those educated on the subject. Right?

      "spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same"

      Unfortunately that perspective seems to be shared by that minority who feels Microsoft products have signficant value. As near as I can tell, your group seems to oddly equate value to sameness. Personally I don't see "it's not the same" as negative.

      "But at the workgroup level, they're a competitor and everyone just has to deal with that."

      At the workgroup level they have a monopoly which they vigorously protect. It is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a competitor to create a collaborative suite that integrates as smoothly with the system as office, not because MS programmers are genuis, but because they don't share the basic interfaces needed to create one. Needless to say, this means they can monopolize almost any application in the desktop market this way and it's anti-competative.

      In short, Microsoft doesn't compete in the workgroup or the desktop markets, it's practices insure market competition CANNOT exist. This is where linux comes in, because it evolves and exists without dependence on the market.

      In terms of merit, the only edge MS has is ease of use. Most of this is false merit, it's simply software designed for the technically ignorant and embraced by the same. But in a few areas their software is easier to use without a significant cost in actual function.

      These areas are being polished up by the open source world now and this is a large part of the focus today. It's a fairly safe bet that these areas simply won't exist much longer.

      "enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security"

      Since when are web servers, email servers, and firewalls enterprise level services? These are commonly run by home users! Almost every "workgroup level" network connects to the internet and runs these "enterprise level" services.

      P.S. Samba surely takes significantly more work to setup. After setup it's just as easy to administrate and performances signficantly better in almost every respect. The same can roughly be said about all things linux/open source versus windows.

    21. Re:Same old, same old... by mackinaugh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes I can. :P Most of the world uses Microsoft software, and therefore most calamitous attacks are directed at it. The same will occur if/when Linux rises to sizeable popularity, but that's a debate for another day.

      I see your tired-old-argument, and raise you three:
      Apache is the number one http server.
      BIND is the number one DNS server.
      Sendmail is the number one mail server.(last I checked, anyway)

    22. Re:Same old, same old... by pfleming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They point out that they indemnify end users by paying out money to companies suing over patent infringments.
      Last I checked it was Microsoft that was sued for infringing, not me, not you, Microsoft. We can't infringe if we didn't know the code was in there. They sure as hell better pay when they get sued and lose. No individual user is going to be sued for Microsoft's patent infringement. This is called covering your own ass and pretending that it is for the benefit of your customers. The theory of deepest pockets also comes into play.
      Their TCO studies (commissioned by Microsoft) put the price of a *nix environment higher than a MS Windows environment, by counting the cost of moving from MS Windows, without considering the cleanup and patching costs of running MS Windows... or more precisely the lost productivity from the network/workstations/servers being down. They also don't consider in the Windows TCO the cost of moving from a *nix environment.
      They call it a "bad thing" when customers buy RHEL, Suse Pro and customers are locked into older versions of software comparing Apache 1.3 to 2.0 on RH without pointing to the fact that bugfixes are backported and support for updates is listed at at least 5 years and without pointing out that with them you will either be buying a new OS or paying for the privilege of buying a new OS without one actually coming out within the subscription period (Software Assurance).
      All in all no better than an infomercial.

  2. Hasn't this been tried before by screeble · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wasn't there an idiotic TCO sheet running around the internet a while back?

  3. MS doing a linux convo? by jimius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do I feel like these "consultants" will favour Windows anyway, and bring examples like how Linux infringes on a ton of stuff and throw in some SCO as well.

  4. Microsoft compares Windows and GNU/Linux by PtrToNull · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please use the correct title, RMS is rolling in his grave right now.

    Oh wait.. he's not dead yet.



    -- this sig is a speck of your imagination, enjoy it.

    1. Re:Microsoft compares Windows and GNU/Linux by HedonismBot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Netcraft can fix that.

      --
      Sailors. Oh man!
  5. Reminds me... by djupedal · · Score: 4, Funny

    ,,,of when my GF compared herself to the x-wife. I knew the outcome from the beginning...who wouldn't?

    1. Re:Reminds me... by savagedome · · Score: 5, Funny

      x-wife

      X-wife?? I bow to your geekhood. You truly are a geek Sir. And I mean it in a good way.

      --


      Free XBox, PS2
    2. Re:Reminds me... by SpongeBobLinuxPants · · Score: 2, Funny

      x-wife

      What is this x-wife program that you speak of? Does it work with Gnome?

      --
      hack a day
    3. Re:Reminds me... by djupedal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, she was more of what I recall as being the 'Y' wife....why did I marry you - why don't you wash the car - why don't you shut up - why don't you drop dead - why don't you go to hell - why don't you get lost - why don't you get a life...that sort of thing :)

    4. Re:Reminds me... by c · · Score: 2, Funny
      I dunno, marriage isn't really compatible with the whole geek persona...

      Hmmm... Honey, do you think we should buy your mom the RAM upgrade or the flannel sheet set? Well, yes, she does _need_ more RAM, but the flannel looks nicer under the tree...

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    5. Re:Reminds me... by markandrew · · Score: 3, Funny

      you should try the new xorg-wife; not as radical as Y but it tidies up some loose ends with the X version, and the pre-nup ain't half as bad!

    6. Re:Reminds me... by Wordsmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      The marketing department called.

      She's now your eXtreme-Wife! (TM)

  6. Gotta love 'em... by mogrify · · Score: 3, Funny

    .../2/d/4/2d4d387b-97af-4923-897d-320fe070e864/...

    ...friendly URLs.

    --
    perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
    1. Re:Gotta love 'em... by jkubecki · · Score: 3, Funny
      .../2/d/4/2d4d387b-97af-4923-897d-320fe070e864/. ..
      ...friendly URLs.


      Yeah, really! Why can't they do friendly URL's like Slashdot?

      (Posted to Slashdot article at http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/28/234 1214&from=rss)
  7. Since when does Linux compete? by parvenu74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone just got finished telling me in another thread (the speil on Vadalia Desktop) that the linux community is all about choice and is not interested in competing with Windows. If that is the case and the truth, why do you even care about a story like this, or care that M$ thinks they are competing with you? After all, it's all about freedom of choice isn't it -- or it is only about choice as long as the choice is Linux?

    1. Re:Since when does Linux compete? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      because ms has a nasty way of 'competing'?

      linux community!= linux companies, which ARE in direct competition with windows(anyone who would say that a companies producing an operating system, spreadsheet and writing applications weren't in competition with microsoft are idiots ).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Since when does Linux compete? by SuperQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right. I don't give a rats ass that my next door neighbor runs XP on their computer. That's their choice. I personaly run Linux, at home and at work.

      Linux was started becuase _we_ the community wanted it. Then it was realized that Linux could replace windows. Sirens sounded at Microsoft. We became their cometition.. but that's not something Microsoft is used to.. a non-profit community was now competition. Sure, they can slam some linux companies into the ground and feel satisfied they took care of the competition. But there are a dozen companies that will take their work and sprout up in their place. Then there are groups like Debian, who no PR department in their right mind would attack.

    3. Re:Since when does Linux compete? by mogrify · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not entirely about free (as in speech) choice, although that's part of it... among other things, it's about raising the standards of software practices. It would make the 'Net a more secure, more stable system if more standards and software were subject to the most rigorous scrutiny possible. At this point, the open source model is the best thing there is for knowing that everything is as bug-free as possible. Two (or thousands of) heads being better than one. Except for improving the general quality of systems on a network, I could care less whether people I don't know want to use MS. But the MS vs Linux debate does affect everyone, ultimately, because we're all on the same network.

      --
      perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
    4. Re:Since when does Linux compete? by BranMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well said - perhaps it can be summed up thus:

      Linux is Windows' competition.

      Linux has no competition.

  8. Whew by mrpuffypants · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally, an impartial review of Windows vs. Linux. I have no doubt that at the end of this article the Microsoft engineers will recommend the clearly superior Linux OS over Windows Server 2003.

    /me goes to RTFM and weep in the corner.

  9. "Linux consultants"? by Mjlner · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That is not entirely correct, since their objectives are to help people migrate away from linux. A linux consultant is an expert that consults on the topic of linux.

    And yes, I did RTFA, so I know that neither Taylor or Hilf, nor Microsoft use the term. They are, in fact, more accurate and honest about what the do. Taylor "[ensures] customers understand the benefits of the Microsoft platform" and Hilf "[leads the] Linux and Open Source Technology Analysis Center" at Microsoft.

    --
    Lemon curry???
  10. Great marketing by OwlWhacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It ends with a great piece from Martin Taylor on how fantastic Windows Server 2003 is. Then it points to www.getthefacts.com .

    That's not really comparing Windows and Linux, it's issuing more FUD, and another attempt at pushing those NT users to 2003 rather than an alternative OS.

    --
    Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
  11. Alright... as you say by savagedome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article

    We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards

    Does Microsoft Office ring any bell Mr. Bill Hilf?!
    Put your actions where your mouth is and open up .doc

    --


    Free XBox, PS2
  12. Hey its Bill And Marty from KBBL by fireman+sam · · Score: 5, Funny

    After reading that I couldn't get the image of Bill and Marty from KBBL out of my head.

    Marty: Hey, thanks Bill. Yes having access to the source code or the "building instructions" is evil. And we at Microsoft will keep you save from all the evil stuff.

    Bill: That's right Marty. And the next person who rings in will win a months supply of IE updates.

    Marty: Watch out Bill, that slashdot crowd is trying to take us off the air.

    Bill: That's ok Marty, we have the latest IIS, we are as safe as... NO CARRIER

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  13. Decouple the OS from the apps? by jacobcaz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • So to give you an example, like I said I've run a lot of Linux shops in the past, I run a lot of commercial Linux here. If we have a particular problem in a certain piece of software, anything from let's say from a Kerberos library to Apache to Samba to any other application that might be on that distribution when we go through that chain of support with our commercial Linux distributor, there is a gap between what they're able to supply and what they have to go back to the open source community to get an answer for to get it resolved. In many cases the response is we need to stick with the version that's available at the time that we purchased that distribution, so for example if I'm running Apache 1.3 on my Red Hat Enterprise server, although I may want Apache 2.0 because it might have new features or it might have some new capabilities, I'm outside of my support model now with Red Hat. This is just an example.
    Interesting he talks about this, but don't you usually have seperate support contracts for the OS and your core apps? I have a beast of a box that runs Windows 2000 Advanced Server but I'm free to run any RDBMS or web server I desire on it. I don't like IIS? Fine, I install WebLogic or WebSphere and I don't lose my support of the OS from Microsoft. I am currently running MSSQL Server 2000, but that could just as easily be Oracle 10g and I don't worry about support for either the app or the OS.

    In fact I don't want to worry about whether my OS vendor will support my web suite - it should be decoupled so I can run the apps I need to run my business whether it's IIS 6.0, Apache 2.0 or WebLogic 6.1.

    1. Re:Decouple the OS from the apps? by FreeLinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, look at it from another angle. One that more closely parallels their example.

      Suppose I am running Windows 2000 and it comes with IIS 5.0. I'm tired of all the security problems and it lacks a couple of new features that IIS 6.0 has and I really want. So I install IIS 6.0, from a Windows 2003 CD, onto my Windows 2000 system. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. There are all sorts of library issues and other problems.

      So, I call Microsoft for support. Their support tells me that IIS 6.0 on Windows 2000 isn't supported. They say that I need to stay with IIS 5.0 or, better yet, upgrade everything to Windows 2003 which comes with IIS 6.0

      How is this example any different than the one that they gave?

    2. Re:Decouple the OS from the apps? by jayed_99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting he talks about this, but don't you usually have seperate support contracts for the OS and your core apps? I have a beast of a box that runs Windows 2000 Advanced Server but I'm free to run any RDBMS or web server I desire on it.

      Well, that's partly true and partly untrue. Most support contracts for enterprise applications are very specific about exactly what OS versions you're allowed to run. SAP and Oracle both come to mind: "with version X.Y.Z. of our product, the supported configurations include A.B.C. or A.B.C.D . or D.E.F. but not C.D.E." I've seen the same thing with smaller contact management applications.
      OS vendors often say things like "well, application X.Y.Y.Z. only runs on OS A.B.C.D. so if you want it to work, you need to apply patch D. Oh, patch D breaks application Y? Sorry.".

      OS and application contracts are decoupled in the general case, but are almost always related in specific cases.

    3. Re:Decouple the OS from the apps? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But in the case of Microsoft and their products, it is in their interest not to provide too much abstraction since their business model is heavily dependant on selling new copies of Windows (and Office). If people could choose what new applications to run on their Windows OS, then (horror of horrors) they might be tempted to stick with their old OS (e.g. NT 4).

      On the other hand, if you look at this from a support point of view, it is understandable that any vendor would want to support a limited software stack, otherwise its difficult (read risky) to give any service level assurances, since the customer might be running some totally weird stack that you'd have a tough time supporting (difficultly getting staff with the right skill-set etc).

      The problem with Windows, is that you _can't_ run any setup you like even if you wanted to. And you have no choice as to _who_ provides your support -- e.g. if Red Hat didn't want to support me, I could in theory find another company who would, whist I continue to run a Red Hat OS. With Windows this is a non-starter since no other company has access to the source and therefore *cannot* provide complete support. Which conveniently ties up with Microsoft's business model so shipping new Windows licences!

  14. Re:A real hoot! by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually I think there will be some insightful talks. The reason is because whenever a company hosts a talk about their product vs another product - they have the burdeon to make the discussion fair and informative. People (i.e. /.) will be looking for MS to say "Windows rules, Linux sucks" and MS knows this. While they might slant it a bit in their favor - it would be very bad for them to rip up Linux w/o justifying each and every insult.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  15. Unbiased by Stiletto · · Score: 3, Funny


    This should be as unbiased as "Slashdot hosts a discussion between the RIAA and the MPAA".

  16. Hi. I'm Troy McClure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from hosting videos of other impartial Microsoft seminars as "Apple: A Scourge or a Mere Annoyance?" and "*BSD: If It is Not Dead It Should Be"

  17. Re:I didn't RTFA but ... by Mjlner · · Score: 5, Funny
    "I didn't RTFA but ... I can guess their conclusion: Windows is better than Linux."

    MOD PARENT UP +1 Psychic!

    --
    Lemon curry???
  18. Spoiler Warning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They found Window's was better.

  19. Just the latest MSFT attack by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Before it was paid for TCO studies that...shockingly...showed MSFT products with the best TCO. This is just a new tact to smear OSS. As illustrated by this recent article.

    Some of those efforts are legitimately aimed at making sure a proprietary code base isn't inappropriately using open source code. But it doesn't take much tweaking to try and make OSS look like some kind of virus. An image based on ignorance, but when has MSFT ever hesitated to promote an uneducated view when it suits them?

    They're really turning into a sad, pathetic company. It's bad enough they produce bloated, insecure, DRM crippled, overpriced software, but to magnify it by being such low class PR whore is just embarrassing.

    MSFT is living proof that no good deed goes unpunished.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  20. They still don't get it. by corporatemutantninja · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I quote: "...promoting open standards that can allow companies like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, as well as other types of software and other types of technologies to work together and still co-exist in a competitive environment."

    What seems to be missing here is "...and small, new companies that challenge the assumptions of these established players."

    --
    Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
    1. Re:They still don't get it. by Quixote · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards

      Can somebody hit Bill with a clue-by-four and ask him about
      1. Samba, and why the Samba project had to reverse-engineer everything?
      2. Microsoft Office, and the hoops OpenOffice.org had to jump through to reverse-engineer their document storage format?
      3. NTFS, and why Linux still can't support NTFS write natively (without using a MS DLL)?
      4. All the hidden system calls that Microsoft uses internally, and which came up in the anti-trust case?

      I can't understand how people like this guy Bill can look themselves in the mirror every morning. Lying pathetically to make a living is no living.

    2. Re:They still don't get it. by the_greywolf · · Score: 2

      no, just some structure specs. oh, what i'd give for their NTFS structure specifications and datasheets!

      (but what i *REALLY* should be doing is writing a Reiser3 driver for NT so i can abandon NTFS for good.)

      --
      grey wolf
      LET FORTRAN DIE!
  21. Makes About As Much Sense As... by JohnPerkins · · Score: 2, Funny

    Herr Goebbels investigating issues of journalistic integrity in 1940s Germany.

    1. Re:Makes About As Much Sense As... by uradu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reminds me of the comfy fireside chats between Hitler and Mussolini regarding the relative merits of representative democracy and genocidal totalitarianism. Ah, those good old Telefunken sets made you think you were right there next to them...

  22. This says it all: by rabbit78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As General Manager of Platform Strategy, I'm responsible for ensuring that our customers understand the benefits of the Microsoft platform. I also spend a fair amount of time doing a level of comparative analysis, making sure our customers understand the differences between Microsoft and some of the key alternatives in the marketplace, specifically Linux and open-source alternatives. Today, Bill Hilf and I will be spending time talking about that. Welcome, Bill.

    --
    Roman Kennke
  23. We both work for Microsoft... by DarkRecluse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But hey, we're just technologists talking about the best solutions for customer issues...we just happen to agree on everything and lead eachother from one issue to the next.

    Discussion = earnest conversation.
    Propaganda = The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
    ( ref. www.dictionary.com )

    --
    --"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
  24. Re:Microsoft by savagedome · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not about caring. It's about the fact that they are recognizing it as big enough force to start swatting away the arguments in their own way.

    What is that quote from Mahatma Gandhi that I keep reading on /. pretty often. It goes something like 'First they ignore you. Then they make fun of you. Then they fight you. Then you win'.

    Its at 'Then they fight you' stage.

    --


    Free XBox, PS2
  25. Misunderstanding by Decaff · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's obvious that Microsoft still does not 'get' key aspects of open source:

    "I always ask the question of customers and yes, there's always a free version, there's Debian, there's Gentoo, there's different distributions that they can pull down and use in a different environment, but when you really want to deploy it in a mission-critical way, when you really want to have something that's broader from an infrastructure perspective, they want something that has support"

    The freeness of the version has nothing whatever to do with the support. I use a server that is Debian but has commercial support.

    I also found the following comment very amusing:

    "in Windows Server particularly, some of the things that struck me as innovative were some of the server management tools. The ability to take a Windows server and literally dynamically change it from a DHCP infrastructure server to a streaming media server, or more importantly, taking a file/print server and adding a variety of other services, maybe make it a domain controller, maybe also make it a Web server."

    Wow! How 'innovative'! Maybe he should look at a tool like 'dselect' under Debian. I can also 'literally dynamically' add and remove services from my server. Anyway, the idea of having a single machine that is nothing more than a DHCP infrastructure server suggests Windows is not the most powerful system.

    1. Re:Misunderstanding by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe it's "innovative" to them since their previous versions needed a reboot.

      I guess Microsoft doesn't accept something as existing unless they do it themselves so everything they do is "innovative" to them.

    2. Re:Misunderstanding by Decaff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess Microsoft doesn't accept something as existing unless they do it themselves so everything they do is "innovative" to them.

      Yeah. Reminds me of a description on their website of Object-Oriented features in VB.Net as 'innovative'. Considering those features were in Simula 40 years earlier, I found this amusing.

  26. What did you expect? by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Honestly. That they would conclude "OSS sure smells sweeter than pushing this ungodly overstuffed OS on people"???

    Get Gates and Torvolds at the same table. Then I would be listening. Short of that it's just one-sided banter [same goes if it was say Linus and another developer at a table]

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  27. Please... by b166er_zeroone · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is like listening to two Microsoft employees bashing Linux... Oh wait...

  28. Don't complain, write a lucid response. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The linux community needs to write a lucid response. Calling them names does not win the marketing battle.

    1. Re:Don't complain, write a lucid response. by killmenow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Insightful?

      Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others.
      I don't quote Linus because I worship him; rather, I quote him here because this point he makes is accurate about what Linux is about. Certain people want to see this as a competition. Fine, that's on them. They can write a response if they want to. But a lot of folks are not trying to win a marketing battle with Microsoft, myself included.

      I don't care what Microsoft has to say about Linux. I know where they are coming from.

      I don't use Linux to stick it to Microsoft. I made a choice based on what I see as practical driving factors that make Linux better. Among those factors are price, functionality, reliability, and control.

      So long as Linux keeps getting better than itself, I'm a happy camper.
  29. Perhaps I'm missing something but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article "...Microsoft Windows, over a five-year period, offered anywhere from 11 to 22% greater TCO.."

    TCO stands for Total Cost of Ownership, right? Surely an 11 to 22% greater TCO would be a disadvantage, right? :P

  30. Re:Great marketing - Set phasers on "ignore" by zarr · · Score: 4, Funny

    In my opinion his opinion is fact.

  31. Article breakdown by scorp1us · · Score: 2, Funny

    #include //indemnification, etc

    #include

    #include

    #include

    #include

    #include

    #include // Note: I did agree with them in that nearly all migrations will require not just an admin, but probably several developers. They did correctly state that this is not what people want to do (pay developers and have to maintain something). I think this is a valid migration cost, and a good point. However, once enough migrations are done, and the developed migration tools realeased, the impact should be nil.

    #include // An obvious lie, because it happens everyday in Linux. Fact: MS can never have the QA testing that linux has, bu virtue of their development models. It was stupid for MS to pick a fight here.

    If this discussion was so open, why not invite some outside people in?

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  32. Here ya go by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 3, Funny
    "I'm all for "reading the article", but this is far too long and I have a bit of work to do. Can anyone post a brief synopsis of what they're saying?"

    Sure:

    FUD
    Corporate-speak FUD
    Slick FUD
    Unbelievably clumsy and obvious FUD
    Laughable FUD
    Bone to the FOSS community
    FUD
    Conclusion: FUD

    1. Re:Here ya go by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 4, Funny
      Something a little more informative (but not much) than the previous comment. Hope you know (pseudo) Perl:

      foreach ($potential_problem) (@linux){
      print "Linux is okay but it has this $potential_problem\n";
      print "Yes, and I think you can see that Microsoft addresses this $potential_problem to the benefit of our customers!\n";
      }

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
  33. What an utter crock o' SHITE! by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Back in another age, I worked in tech support for several well-known companies. On page 'one' of every tech support manual every written, it says

    In the event that the user is having a problem with our software and another company's, never attempt to fix the problem. Instead, insist that the problem lies in the other software. Tell the user to disable the other software and the problem should go away <g>.

    If the user says that he called the other company's tech support and they told him to disable our software, tell him that doing so will not fix the problem.

    In the unlikely event that the user is conferencing in someone from the other company's tech support, insist that the issue lies with either an API or the other software's int21 handler. The other tech will deny the charges. Continue to volley back and forth for a while (remember, the user is probably calling long-distance to two numbers, so it is in his interest to get off the phone quickly), then finally get the other company's tech research number and tell them that you'll have our tech research contact theirs. Make a note in the customer db that the problem is closed: research, and end the call. Do not give the user a timeline for resolution. Under no circumstances admit or imply that the problem might lie with our software. You can offer again to the user to disable the other software with the assurance the problem will go away.

    Oh, and the point of TS is not to solve problems. It is an arm of marketing, to help PHBs think they're getting value for the money and pacify users. Over 95% of the calls are invariably showing users how to do something. About 4% are because the user doesn't know what he's doing at all and screwed himself, and 1% is due to low-grade bugs that will never be fixed because they don't happen to enough people.

    --
    Yeah, right.
  34. Re:Great marketing - Set phasers on "ignore" by RangerRick98 · · Score: 3, Funny

    In my opinion your opinion that his opinion is fact is fact.

    Besides, opinions that are backed by facts make a pretty strong argument. :)

    --
    "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
  35. Relevant quote from 2000 years ago by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great quote from Jesus: "If a blind man follows a blind man, won't they both end up in a ditch?"

    --
    Do you have ESP?
  36. Re:Fair and Balanced! by Alan+Cox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you are being grossly unfair to Al-Jazeera

  37. http://www.getthefacts/ by tetrode · · Score: 2, Funny

    They cannot even get this intarweb thingy correct.

    Losers...

  38. Article summary by Diomidis+Spinellis · · Score: 4, Interesting
    • The developers really putting work in open source systems aren't that many; Microsoft can hire more developers to do a better job.
    • Commercial Linux distributors are forced to create incompatible solutions as value-added propositions.
    • Studies have shown that developers believe Microsoft is the top vendor in addressing their interoperability concerns.
    • Commercialized Linux distributions limit the flexibility of the available open source solutions.
    • Microsoft provides higher quality support and at a cheaper price than Linux vendors.
    • Microsoft stands behind Windows provididing an extremely hight level of IP protection and indemnification.
    • Microsoft has a faster turnaround between a security disclosure and a bug fix than other open source systems.
    • Microsoft commits resources to do comprehensive QA and testing; the open source model leaves that to chance.
    • The Windows ecosystem of certified compatible hardware and software is a lot larger than that of Linux.
    • Microsoft leads in software innovation.
    1. Re:Article summary by l3v1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft leads in software innovation.

      And that shall be carved on their gravestone (and Seattle Computer Products also should be notified, just so they know).

      What I would like to see happen is to virtually equal out the financial situation of MS to the level of FOSS developers, and see how they could perform that way. For the ignorant masses out there, it would be a huge lesson to see how MS could perform without the trackloads of cash they posess, unable to spend on brainwashing marketing, FUD campaigns, and senseless discussions like this one.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    2. Re:Article summary by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 4, Informative

      > The developers really putting work in open source systems aren't that many; Microsoft can hire more developers to do a better job.

      Perhaps they need to read _The Mythical Man Month_ again. :-) Hint: it ain't always the number of developers that makes a project work.

      > Commercial Linux distributors are forced to create incompatible solutions as value-added propositions.

      This is different from Windows how?

      > Studies have shown that developers believe Microsoft is the top vendor in addressing their interoperability concerns.

      Which developers? Windows developers?

      > Commercialized Linux distributions limit the flexibility of the available open source solutions.

      Not really. They provide additional support options for customers.

      > Microsoft provides higher quality support and at a cheaper price than Linux vendors.

      Apples and oranges. Microsoft doesn't provide any support to non-enterprise customers without a pricey support contract. Others are forced to find third-party support in both cases, often from the same firms.

      > Microsoft stands behind Windows provididing an extremely high level of IP protection and indemnification.

      So do many major Linux vendors.

      > Microsoft has a faster turnaround between a security disclosure and a bug fix than other open source systems.

      That doesn't fit the statistics I've seen from third parties, and I think MS would be VERY hard-pressed to provide service as fast the Linux kernel folks have.

      > Microsoft commits resources to do comprehensive QA and testing; the open source model leaves that to chance.

      A software's distribution method has little to do with its development methodology, and even less to do with the formal QA methodology in use.

      > The Windows ecosystem of certified compatible hardware and software is a lot larger than that of Linux.

      Sure, but the actual number of peripherals that are supported by both systems is roughly comparable (with Windows having a lead in newer hardware and Linux a lead in legacy hardware support).

      > Microsoft leads in software innovation.

      Only in their own minds, I'm afraid...

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  39. In related news... by slavemowgli · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In related news, the german nazi party announced that Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler are doing a fair and objective comparison between Jews and aryans, available for free to any registered german of aryan descent.

    Seriously, guys, that's about how credible stuff like this is. (My sincerest apologies to everyone who lost relatives, friends, loved ones etc. in the holocaust, BTW)

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  40. Re:Great marketing - Set phasers on "ignore" by DA-MAN · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is that a fact?

    --
    Can I get an eye poke?
    Dog House Forum
  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Windows is worth the money ! by sunsrin · · Score: 2, Funny

    It lets anyone install anything on your machine and connect to anyone on the Internet so that your bandwidth and disk space is utilized to the limit.

    Windows improves US Tech Industry and hence US economy by creating opportunities for every other software company - one keeps on finding vulnerabilites (Security Companies), one protecting it (Symantec , etc)and the other one exploiting it (all those script kiddies making u visit porn sites).

    Now, Can you beat that?

    --
    >> Techflock-flock onto the best bits of technology
  43. Better interoperability is one goal, yes. by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    However, if a better design could be submitted to Microsoft for their own system (based on an outsider's view of their own code), then both Microsoft and their customer base could derive benefit.

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  44. A very revealing quote by mikec · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They still don't understand:

    So, fundamentally, you'll see maybe between 100 to 200 developers working on Linux at any given point in time. There might be a larger group that's helping test that, but the real work is within a small group and there's nothing really different there than many other software projects, commercial and open.

    At Microsoft, the real work doesn't include testing.
  45. Coming soon... by mjudtmann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton compare Windows and Linux.

  46. my personal favorite by mrsbrisby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "In many cases the response is we need to stick with the version that's available at the time that we purchased that distribution, so for example if I'm running Apache 1.3 on my Red Hat Enterprise server, although I may want Apache 2.0 because it might have new features or it might have some new capabilities, I'm outside of my support model now with Red Hat."

    Is this a bad thing? Does Microsoft do something different? Can I get IIS6 supported on Windows 2000? Can I get Apache2 supported on Windows 2000?

    "... if you take a look at Intertrust, the company that filed suit against Microsoft for patent infringement, Microsoft wrote a check for $440 million and our customers did not have to do anything in their implementation of Microsoft technology nor feel the pain, let's just say, of that situation."

    If I used Microsoft software (That's a pretty big IF), would anything be different for me if Microsoft DIDN'T pay off Intertrust? Does Microsoft really think that if I don't violate a patent, I can be sued because they did?

    "Obviously, Microsoft is incredibly focused on security."

    Right... Obviously...

  47. M$, put your interoperability where your mouth is! by emil · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What we found was about 72% of them felt that Microsoft is the top of all vendors in supporting their major interoperability concerns... So that's another proof point where we both want to make sure that it's easy to manage and operate our stuff, so to speak, within our stack as well as Microsoft and Windows applications on top of our stack, but then also working across with heterogeneous technologies as well.

    Do you seriously expect us to believe you? If so, then I will anxiously be awaiting:

    • MS SQL Server clients for Linux, Solaris, and others (produced or endorsed by M$)
    • Exchange clients for the same
    • Simple HOWTOs for LDAP integration with ActiveDirectory, published by M$, focusing on the above-mentioned distributions
    • M$ puts an option for POSIX/UNIX in the base installer for XP (like Apple does)
    • M$ contributes to and supports Samba
    • M$ publishes full, open standards for TDS, MAPI, TAPI, SMB, and all other closed protocols
    • M$ never funds a SCO-like attack again
    • M$ stops funding biased TCO studies

    When the decision is made to place enterprise data in M$ products, it is hard to avoid the Jim Jones analogy of "drinking the M$ cool-aid" - there is no backing out once it's done.

    The M$ attitude on competing platforms has always been slash and burn. The above is slash and burn with lipstick.

    p.s. Start using strlcpy and friends, and do so publicly and thank the developers. What is it, 10,000+ unsafe string calls in the base Win32?

  48. The empty can rattles the most by gillbates · · Score: 2, Informative

    When it comes down to it, actions speak louder than words. Microsoft talks alot about enterprise class reliability, etc... but I've never seen a Microsoft network that was truly enterprise class. Perhaps I've had a spate of incompetent admins, but every Microsoft shop I've been in has had problems with security.

    Case in point: a few days ago I received an email from a friend telling me not to send him emails with attachments anymore (They run Windows exclusively). Apparently, they are having such a problem with viruses that the company has just adopted a policy of firing (without warning, mind you) anyone who receives email attachments. While I don't like it, I'm not surprised; he's told me in the past that virus cleanup has cost this company millions of dollars per incident.

    So because Microsoft can't be bothered to write secure systems, his corporate email is essentially useless to the company. How "Enterprise Class" is a mail system which costs the company a additional few million dollars with every virus outbreak? Where's the ROI on a mail system that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't work?

    And we wonder why IBM can sell a mainframe with the computing power of a desktop PC for millions of dollars...

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  49. They don't "get it", or maybe they do... by eno2001 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This bit here illustrates that they don't understand the "why" of Linux:

    So, Bill and I are here today to discuss the similarities and differences between Windows and Linux and open-source alternatives. Microsoft believes that customer needs drive the competitive debate. We know the only way we win with customers is by having a much better solution to offer our customers in making sure that we're addressing their pains over and above Linux and open-source alternatives.

    Linux doesn't exist to satisfy the business requirements of PHBs or bean counters. Linux exists to serve the needs of users who want to get more out of their computers. In some cases this CAN benefit the above mentioned PHBs and bean counters, but it's not the driving raison d'être of Linux. The needs of the people come first, and business second.

    For example, one thing that normally comes up is that Microsoft is anti-open source, and they've used some of our activities as Microsoft versus open source.

    This is something we can agree on. Microsoft isn't necessarily anti-open source. The misconception comes from the confusion over the differences between GNU GPL (aka free software: free as in speech) software and open source. Many people think that the primary goal of free software is to provide the course code. Of course this is not completely true, but merely a subset of what free software is. The 'free' in free software means that a user is free to do whatever they want with the software as long as they don't impact other people's freedoms (keeping modified GPL code to yourself if you are making profit impacts other people's freedoms). Microsoft is not anti-open source, they are anti-GPL. There is a difference as much as they want to muddy the waters.

    We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards that can allow companies like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, as well as other types of software and other types of technologies to work together and still co-exist in a competitive environment.

    That's why it's possible for me to use a Mac to administer a Windows Active Directory domain? Right? (cue: sound of wind) ;P

    It brings up another interesting misperception that we see a lot when we do this comparative analysis between Unix and Linux, and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about -- that Linux is Unix.

    Ask a "suit" a technical question and get a stupid answer. ;P Seriously, Bill and Martin you must be talking to the wrong people. Most technology managers worth their salt know the distinction between Linux and Unix, Free and Open Source, and the various Linux distributions. If you're getting people who think that Linux is Unix, then those companies must be putting you in touch with the golf set and not the real IT folks. There are certainly major differences between distributions, but there is one thing that all of them are capable of that you are overlooking. You can grab the source for many useful programs and compile it for whatever distro you're on. I've been doing this for years now. I want a media player that didn't come with Redhat, Mandrake or Fedora? I just download the source for mplayer or xine and I've got what I need.

    And you have to take a look, Martin, at the ecosystems around those technologies...

    Marketroid speak. The whole concept of the "ecosystem" is kind of lame. It's more like a universe. Some things work together and perform a beautiful dance (like solar systems) and other collide and cause major damage (like asteroids and planets or moons). But even that analogy is flawed because the world of computer software is it's own entity with it's own properties. Trying to make analogies to dumb it down for marketing purposes is pointless. Just as we had to get used to cars because they really weren't "horseless carriages", we have to get used to the sof

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  50. Misconceptions: How is Microsoft different? by mr_rattles · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As they tried to clear up some misconceptions about Linux they offer up clarifications but what I'd like to hear is how Microsoft compares to Linux in light of the points they make. A couple of examples:

    1. Martin claims that Microsoft is not anti-open source and has even contributed to the open source community. He then suggests that other companies such as IBM, Oracle, and CA claim to embrace open source but actually do not. His reason is that these companies see benefit of embracing open source when they really do not have strong platforms in the open source product space. So where does Microsoft fit in? They aren't anti-open source but they don't embrace it either... they do contribute to the open source community but is Martin claiming that Microsoft does have a strong platform somewhere in the open source product space?

    2. When discussing support Martin makes a "clarification" that when you get support for a commercial distribution such as Red Hat there is a point where the support staff has to contact a project's community in order to provide support. So the support staff isn't all-knowing. I understand that but I don't understand why this was a misconception. Is the misconception that people think they are getting support directly from the developers or that the support staff at Red Hat knows everything about all software they provide in their distribution? Again, how does Microsoft fit in? When I call MS support I'm talking to a support person, who doesn't know every little detail about the software so there is also a limitation with their support. Yes this may be a clarification but I don't see how this clarification is useful at all when comparing Windows and Linux. From what I gathered Martin is suggesting that support from Red Hat has similar limitations to that of Microsoft.

    3. Another one from the support discussion. Martin mentions that, if I have Apache 1.3, although I want to upgrade to Apache 2.0 I can't get support for it because it's outside my support model... So how is Microsoft different? If I own Windows 3.1 can I call up Microsoft and get support on Windows XP, which I do not own?

    I would really like to see the Microsoft experts and employees make clarifications about Windows and Linux experts (not Microsoft affiliated) make clarifications about Linux. This article seemed to me to be a couple of Microsoft employees making points about Linux but not providing many matching points of how Microsoft compares with no Linux experts involved at all in this "open" discussion to clarify in areas where Bill and Martin might be out of the know with respect to Linux.

    --
    Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
  51. The "if Linux was as popular as Windows" thing... by Admiral+Burrito · · Score: 2, Funny
    Sort of like how every major Internet virus disaster, spyware infestation, and countless other sorts of electronic calamity occurs as a direct result of using Microsoft software. You can't spin that.
    Yes I can. :P Most of the world uses Microsoft software, and therefore most calamitous attacks are directed at it. The same will occur if/when Linux rises to sizeable popularity, but that's a debate for another day.

    So you agree that Linux is more secure for the foreseeable future... Or are you making the bold prediction that Linux is on the verge of displacing Windows as the dominant OS?

    Myself, I predict that by the time Linux is "targeted more because it's so popular" like Windows supposedly is now, we'll all have flying cars, and they'll run Linux, and they'll get hacked and start falling out of the sky. It'll be quite horrible. But then we'll just send a cyborg back in time to kill Linus Torvalds before he creates Linux and it'll all work out in the end because after the change in the timeline we'll all be running OpenBSD.

  52. A point regarding a big choice by jbolden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was one point in the article I've hit a lot in real life that doesn't get mentioned much here

    think, Bill, that's exactly the decision criteria that customers need to understand. And I'm hearing more and more customers begin to hit that fork in the road saying, "Wow, I want something that's fully supported; however, I also want this broad flexibility of being able to do different things with my distribution." They're beginning to realize now that you can't have both of those worlds together, necessarily. You do have to either move more towards the side of fully flexible, open-source projects, which means you don't have that quote unquote award-winning vendor-level support, or you have more of a packaged software, commercialized software scenario which is a bit more like in the lines of how Microsoft distributes software that can be fully supported in a broad-based way.

    I think Martin is absolutely correct here. As people move to "enterprise" distributions designed to provide binary compatability long term they will lose many of the major advantages of Linux. They will be back in the rigid world where they don't have control.

    I see this all the time. For example to get a custom MySQL implemented on RedHat enterprise 3 we needed a custom Apache. The custom apache created problems with binaries like Oracle (yes we needed both, why is off topic). There was talk of a custom kernel, and while I though the custom kernel made a great deal of sense it totally killed the point of going with an enterprise distribution once you change the kernel no one is going to give you any meaningful support......